Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Not even close. A person goes to trial for murder, is convicted then later over turned in subsequent trial. That process has nothing to do with if murder is legal or not, it has to do with if the person fulfills the definition of being guilty.

And I was referring to situations where the laws were changed which resulted in changes to in-progress punishments, in some cases even to the extent of releasing prisoners. Again, this ability to be changed is the literal antithesis of incontrovertibility.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

When that process ends, it is applied incontrovertibly asserted.

Again, it is not incontrovertibly asserted. It's upheld as the best available option until arguments and/or are presented which controvert it. These arguments and/or facts aren't refused outright, which would fulfill the definition of incontrovertibility.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

The death sentence is an incontrovertible conclusion.

You mean the fact that someone is dead is incontrovertible? Again, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of incontrovertibility, or at least are misusing the term/using it quite loosely. The fact that someone is dead is not asserted incontrovertibly, and anyone is free to present evidence that someone is not dead.

Regarding the death sentence, this is also not incontrovertible for a very long time leading up to the actual punishment. That long time is specifically meant to provide opportunities to controvert the sentence before it is carried out. This is why, statistically, a vast majority of death penalties are, in fact, overturned (this source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.89857bcbf3e4) states that only 16% are carried out). Again, this is the literal antithesis of incontrovertibility.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Basically, incontrovertable doesn't mean unchanging. That is why you can be incontrovertably guilty of violatinga law.. while the law itself can change.

Again, wrong. Anyone is free to present arguments and/or evidence to controvert the verdict. The fact that in most cases verdicts aren't challenged due to lack of evidence doesn't mean the verdict is incontrovertibly asserted, it just means that the verdict has the evidence to back it up, and there isn't evidence which refutes it. But if anyone were to present reasoned arguments and evidence to controvert it, which they are free to do (again, the literal antithesis of incontrovertibility), the verdict can be overturned. If somebody would simply refuse actual new evidence which controverts the verdict simply by saying, "No, we decided he was guilty, so now he's guilty for ever", that would be asserting something incontrovertibly (dogmatically).

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Your projecting "in order to continue to fulfilling it's goal of serving the people". That certainly isn't a necessity of gov motivation, and if anything is the exception, as they really seek to maintain power.

In the preamble of the US constitution, before any actual articles, it actually states the goal:
"to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

And if the gov isn't motivated to fulfill the constitution, then I don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

False, unchanging is not an antithetical element of dogma, or a necissary elemnt to incontrovertable.

I think you meant "changing is not an antithetical element of dogma". But in any case, I'm not talking about actual change actually happening. This is I think your misunderstanding, based on your statements about verdicts and the death penalty. What I'm talking about is the ability to be changed. Read my sentence again: "that which can be changed is not incontrovertible dogma". It doesn't have to change, and it can remain unchanged/unchanging. But whether it can be changed is the important criteria when it comes to determining whether something is asserted as incontrovertible dogma.

I've supported how not only laws, but also individual guilty verdicts, as well as punishments, can all be changed. Please provide some examples of any of those being asserted and enforced incontrovertibly, where nobody is allowed to present arguments and/or evidence to controvert them. And again, remember it's not about whether there is evidence which can be presented or whether someone actually wants to do it, it's about whether evidence can be presented (is allowed to be presented).

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

I am referring to neither. I am refering to the basic assumptions of science, the scientific method. The presupositions of science.

These are not asserted incontrovertibly, and anyone is free to present reasoned and supported arguments and/or evidence against them. Yet again, the literal antithesis of incontrovertibility.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Those are the dogma of science.

They can be referred to as the dogmas of science, but that would be correct only in the first usage I mentioned. Again, it's not the same kind of incontrovertible dogma which we are discussing as part of the OP.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Then SM is not superior, as it is not established that non secular morality is in fact wrong, and the dogmatic nature of some people asserting non SM is not relevant as proof to it being "dogmatic".

You are yet again playing/mixing with the concepts/definitions in order to support your argument. Since the definitions are quite clear for SM and RM (non SM), "non SM" doesn't require proof of it being dogmatic - it is dogmatic by definition. If any system is shown to not be dogmatic by nature, then it simply wouldn't be considered RM (non SM).

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

None of that is true, and sounds more like you have been listening to atheist propaganda.

Could you be more specific, since your very next sentence admits that religious disputes end in armed conflict: "The fact that Christianity arose on the wrong end of the sword(IE the receiving end)".

It doesn't matter which end is which, the fact that a sword is involved proves the point that dogma. Further, Christianity has been on the other end quite a number of times, which again proves my point.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

but you said truth doesn't change.
So, once you have truth wouldn't it be to not change be the goal?
Your system is starting to eat itself.

You are yet again mixing concepts, this time conflating an SM system with the body of facts we have available to us when utilizing it.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

How so? Support explain please.

I've already responded to each of your incorrect statements about science, explaining why they are incorrect.

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

Sorry I missed this post, Peter.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Sure it will harm you - fact. Is it accepted that abortion violently kills an innocent human being? If so, then why are there so many abortions (millions every year) if it is considered harmful to cut off (pull off) someone's head?

Well, for one, your comparison between someone cutting off your head and someone performing an abortion fails for a couple reasons: person-hood and suffering is not universally recognized in the case of abortions, and not all abortions are performed in the way you describe (violently, cutting/pulling). These are facts.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Warning for graphic content showing decapitated unborn human beings

Please note that the last image you posted is not a decapitated unborn fetus, nor a successful abortion. It's an example of Dr. Kermit Gosnell's use of incorrect methods to perform abortions, and therefore is not a valid example to include in your gruesome selection.

Originally Posted by PGA2

That depends on what SM regime and system of thought or control you/one live(s) under, such as China or North Korea, or Russia.

Again, these are not SM, if only for the simple and clear reason that they seek to enforce, control, and/or limit religion.

Originally Posted by PGA2

The standards are merely made up if there is no ultimate standard as the measure.

The ultimate standard is the benefit of the society implementing the system. Such a standard is based on facts.

Originally Posted by PGA2

It just depends on who makes them up and where you live. Civilization (when you can call it that) is replete with such examples of different (harmful) standards.

Sure, and we use facts and reasoned argumentation to show why they are harmful.

Originally Posted by PGA2

The Bible is the basis I use.

Then your basis in entirely circular. You are taking the source of the moral pronouncements as the reason for why you should accept the source of the moral pronouncements as authoritative.

Originally Posted by PGA2

An omniscient and omnipotent being would know best, and if He chose to exercise His sovereignty by revealing what is best (Himself), then we would be responsible for living according to His standard or face repercussions. As His creatures in His creation, we would eventually have to answer for the wrong we have done.

Lots of claims without support.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Yes, if God created humanity to live forever.

How does our being created to live forever (another unsupported claim) mean it's good to punish someone infinitely for a finite crime?

Originally Posted by PGA2

How so? Why is your system of thought any better than my opposing mode of thinking in a relative, subjective world of ideas?

It may not be better than your mode of thinking, and you have every opportunity to try and present arguments and demonstrate why yours is better. Feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Why is your opinion of improvement any 'better' than Hitler's idea of change, or Kim Jong-un's?

Because evidence supports that Hitler's and KJU's ideas, while not only being non-secular, are also not conducive to the betterment of the people.

Originally Posted by PGA2

You are just lucky you live in a culture that is significantly influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Sure, there was influence from certain religions, but the validity of the influence didn't come from the fact that it was from a religion, the valididty came when the conclusions being reached were confirmed and supported by evidence. The fact that the very same principles have been confirmed as beneficial hundreds of times over by countless cultures prior to Xtianity demonstrates this.

Originally Posted by PGA2

The problem with 'improvement' is who discusses what 'better' is and why is their relative standard the standard that all others SHOULD be fashioned after?

Anyone can discuss it and offer evidence and reasoned arguments for what the standard should be. This is not an issue.

Originally Posted by PGA2

If you are just a biological bag of atoms that fizzes one way, and me another, according to my electro-chemical reactions then what makes your opinion any better than mine?

Well, for one, it's not an opinion that something which is proven to be beneficial is better than something which is not proven to be beneficial. Second, if you can offer valid support for why your opinion/idea should be accepted, then nothing should stand in your way. Feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Better needs an ultimate best in which to measure qualitative values against or else whose 'best' are we to believe?

The ultimate standard is something we can all strive to understand, but for now, the best standard we have is "whatever best achieves the goal of limiting unnecessary human suffering and maximizing human flourishing". If you think you can offer a better standard and provide support for it, feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by PGA2

The very nature of best is better than all others. Since you are not omniscient how do you determine all the computations of a particular system of thinking as to its goodness?

We don't need to be omniscient or have all the knowledge in the universe, even though we should still try to achieve that. The nature of best you describe is just a bit incomplete, since you left out the "currently available" qualifier. So, we are fully able to determine what is the best out of what we have available currently, and that best would definitely be better than all others which are currently available.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Your idea of utopia becomes a living hell once the scenario starts to play out. Look at every country that implemented communism.

While communism does have its flaws, there are aspects of socialism in general which definitely are beneficial. Just look at the examples of socialism from which you are benefitting right now.

Originally Posted by PGA2

But when you adopt the Judeo-Christian system of thought things work better because it is based on a best.

Again, two things: (1) Xtians didn't invent the principles you are referring to - it existed long before Xtianity, and (2) those principles are only valid because they are supported by evidence. You'll find that the principles upheld by Xtianity which are not supported by evidence are usually not implemented by an SM society.

Originally Posted by PGA2

After all, is it better not to murder/kill another INNOCENT human being? Is it better not to steal, not to lie, not to commit adultery, not to covet?

Again, all these principles have existed much longer than Xtianity.

Originally Posted by PGA2

If you say it is not better to tell the truth, then why would you be able to trust anything anyone else told you if they lived according to such a standard?

I didn't say it is not better to tell the truth, so not sure where you're getting that from.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Given that you think your reasoning is 'better' than my reasoning, and if there is no ultimate measure, why SHOULD your reasoning be better than mine?

Again, the ultimate measure is the one which is proven to be the best out the those which are currently available to us. If you'd like to offer a better one and support it, feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by PGA2

If I am starving why would it be in my best interest to share with you? When shortages of food or economic crisis occur, it is more often than not that every man is for himself or his family. There is no reasoning available, operating on a secular morality, that I would share with you what I grew to feed my family, even if I have a little more than my family needs at present, if it ultimately means their survival over yours.

Again, you need only look to the existing examples of such benefits offered by SM societies.

Originally Posted by PGA2

But as a Christian, I would forgo my earthly existent to look after yours along with my family, instead of my own.

"along with my family, instead of my own" is a bit incoherent. Are you looking after my family instead of your own, or looking after my family along with yours? In any case, the socialistic support structures implemented by many SM societies is an example of this principle, which again, is in no way unique to Xtianity nor invented by it. The only thing I would add is to point our that the fact you need Xtianity in order to understand/adopt the principle is indeed alarming. Please, by all means, continue to be a Xtian if this is the only reason you act benevolently to your fellow man.

Originally Posted by PGA2

You have a reason or reasons that may very well oppose my reasoning.

And the reasoning which is supported by evidence is recognized as superior.

Originally Posted by PGA2

How does 'loving your neighbor as yourself' seem unreasonable?

It doesn't, and I didn't say it did. Again, this principle is not unique to Xtianity, and it's supported by evidence, which is why it is adopted - not because it's asserted by whatever religion.

Originally Posted by PGA2

How does an ultimate qualitative value that best can be know from and better can be compared to seem absurd?

I'd like you to rephrase this, since I can't really make sense of it.

Originally Posted by PGA2

If it does seem ridiculous, then what is your final standard that you derive best from?

Again, the standard should be the one that is recognized as the best from all currently available standards.

Originally Posted by PGA2

It is a subjective standard, right?

The standard of "limiting unnecessary human suffering and maximizing human flourishing" is, by definition, necessarily subjective to us humans, yes. There is nothing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by PGA2

You don't have an ultimate, final standard, do you?

We have the best currently available standard. If you'd like to offer and support a different one, feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by PGA2

You make one up, or someone else does for you because you use words like good and better that change as more and more reasoning requires you to redefine what is good.

Nobody just "makes it up" - it's determined based on facts & evidence. Ironically, it is your standard which, by all available evidence, appears to be made up. Of course, it wasn't really made up, but was simply the standard determined by the facts available at that time, but luckily we have better information now.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Not so long ago abortion and same-sex marriage were considered taboo by both our North American societies. Which system of thought is better, the one we used to hold or the one we hold today (because both are opposites and both can't be equally right).

According to the current state, this system is better.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Which social system is better, the one adopted by the USA or the one chosen by Kim Jong-un, the Vatican, or Saudi Arabia, regarding abortion or same-sex marriage?

The one which is best supported by evidence.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Why SHOULD your social group get to choose? And what about those in your greater society who disagree with the spoon-fed masses or the elite who pass the laws? Why can't these sub-cultures be right also?

If they can present evidence and reasoned argument for their side, they might indeed be right.

Originally Posted by PGA2

If you say they both can be right, you run into a problem of a logical contradiction. Which is the true standard?

Again, the one which is supported by evidence.

Originally Posted by PGA2

In a relative world, please explain why your system is the true standard, or do you just want to foster your atheistic views by force on everyone so we can all live as you dictate?

Nobody should be forced to adopt atheistic views - that would make it non-SM.

Originally Posted by PGA2

goes against the will on the native system.

Yes, a non-SM system dogmatically asserting their inferior system.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Reasoned in whose mind? A secular mindset. Why is your mindset any better than mine?

Because it has the evidence to back it up.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Define your ultimate best standard, so I may determine if it is better. Is your gauge ultimately yourself? Which relative individual or group holds the keys to best if not you?

The individual or group who have evidence to back up their side.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Better in whose mind, yours?

Better according to the observed results - the evidence.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Let's get down to concrete examples. What is your view on abortion? It is, or SHOULD it be, the woman's right to choose?

What I personally think about abortion is irrelevant to the OP and our current discussion, which is how SM's ability to change when new evidence is found (among other criteria) makes it superior to non-SM (RM).

Originally Posted by PGA2

They are subject to change in your system of thought because you can't grab onto an ultimate best or final measure of comparison.

I've already provided the standard. My example of killing someone comports with this, since there may be circumstances where killing someone is the best available action.

Originally Posted by PGA2

You're always trying to get to best but never can.

Please support or retract this claim.

Originally Posted by PGA2

'Better' is only as good as those who believe it

No, it's only as good as the evidence supporting it.

Originally Posted by PGA2

until someone else comes along and explains their subjective views are better yet.

No, it's until someone else comes along and offers other evidence.

Originally Posted by PGA2

If others decide to accept those beliefs, then what was once considered better is now jettisoned and replaced by another relative opinion. That view is opposite of what was once thought better. You can never get to best in a changing system of thought regarding qualitative values.

If "the best" is identified as "that which maximizes human flourishing and minimizes needless human suffering", the it is quite possible to get to what is best from what we currently have available. Indeed, a changing system is actually the only thing which can achieve the best, since we are always learning more and would need to update our knowledge and principles accordingly.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Is killing an innocent human being for the fun of it ever right?

If it doesn't maximize human flourishing and minimize needless human suffering, then no. Ironically, killing an innocent human being is precisely what your God demanded. What that right?

Originally Posted by PGA2

They were operating on the principle of justice (God's justice).

So no, they weren't operating on the Golden Rule. Thanks for confirming.

Originally Posted by PGA2

These people groups living in the Promised Land practiced evil. Some, such as the Ammonites, practiced human sacrifices ... What is more, these people groups would have obstructed God's plan by eradicating the Jews from the land or corrupting them to do evil (which they did). They would have (and did) persuade them to adopt foreign gods who are not the Only true God.

And that justifies their being exterminated, except for the virgins, who were taken as slaves? Would you argue that, if there was some country acting like the Ammonites and practicing human sacrifices, the US Army, for example, would be entirely justified in killing every last adult male and taking the virgins as slaves?

Originally Posted by PGA2

'Better' in whose mind? In any given society many (sometimes countless) subcultural groups oppose the central system of thought.

"Demonstrably better" means better according to the available evidence.

Originally Posted by PGA2

No, Hitler used Christianity as a means to an end. Mein Kampf deals with a social Darwinian system of thought - the strong survive. Many people claim they are Christians, some even think it is their birthright, yet do not display an ounce of Christian fruit in their actions.

This is nothing more than the no true Scotsman fallacy. Regardless, Hitler did claim to be doing the work of God (whatever his idea of God was is irrelevant), and every soldier had god on their side. The use of Xtianity as a means to an end doesn't change the fact that it was non-SM (RM).

Originally Posted by PGA2

Anyone who alters the message of Christianity is not a Christian. They do not worship God in spirit and in TRUTH. Hitler did not recognize the OT and many parts of the NT, including Matthew and the writings of Paul. He shaped his Positive Christianity to resemble Aryian teachings, a false gospel.

No true Scotsman again - irrelevant to the fact that Hitler's regime was non-SM (RM).

Originally Posted by PGA2

What you see as 'reasoned discourse' I regard as a propaganda machine that tries to drown out opposing views (just like Hitler did).

You can see it any way you wish, but feel free to support your view with evidence. You'll find that, with Hitler, there were those who did attempt to have reasoned discourse, but it was not returned, and they were quieted by force (non-SM again).

Originally Posted by PGA2

I perceive my conservative reasoning as drowned out in much of your/my culture, including gatekeeping institutions of higher learning (the school system, colleges, and universities), the Democratic Party/Liberal Party, Holywood, and the liberal-minded mass media. These (and other liberal groups) control the mainstream view held by your/my society.

Maybe, and I'm just spit-balling here, if you had more evidence to support your reasoning, it wouldn't be drowned out quite as much.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Either the standard I listed is positive and provides the most reliable results that we SHOULD follow, or it does not. Are you saying such a standard does not?

Like I already explained, whether a standard provides reliable results is one aspect, and whether the standard is intended to do so is another. We were discussing the latter.

Originally Posted by PGA2

It is the type of situation YOU find YOURSELF in, but don't include me in your system.

No, you are also in the situation where the best possible has not been found. You may claim otherwise, lack the evidence necessary to support your claim.

Originally Posted by PGA2

I do NOT share the same value system that you or many in your culture does in many instances. If you can prove that the Christian system of thought is a sham then, you have a point. I do not believe you can.

This is nothing more than shifting the burden of proof. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Explain to me how you can arrive at better in an ever changing sytem of thought in which best has not been defined or realized and the term better rests.

I've already explained the standard and how we are able to arrive at the best available system using that standard.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Stats can be used to bolster any system of thought.

Sure, and when statistics are incorrectly interpreted and such situations are uncovered, it's only more evidence and reasoned arguments that can get to the bottom of what's actually true. It almost sounds as if you're arguing that the entire endeavour of statistics analysis and research is useless and should be thrown out. Feel free to support why.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Inclusive of who? Is a liberal university campus like Berkeley inclusive?

You'll find that such situations are hotly debated and those universities criticised by many.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Are women who choose to destroy their offspring being inclusive? Are those who object to a Christian saying "Merry Christmas" being inclusive? Are those who form a different opinion on any particular issue being inclusive when they exclude others? Are the Palestinians or Iranians inclusive of the rights of Israel to exist? Is Kim Jong-un being inclusive regarding his people or the rest of the world?

Right, but a large group of people holds the view that what they believe is right/true without 'right and true' being locked down. For them, it can mean whatever they want it to say/mean. These people do not want a rational discourse; they want what they like to be made legal. This is the same case for you unless you have an ultimate standard/measure/reference point that can be appealed to. Do you have such a standard? If not, don't tell me what you like is BETTER than what I like.

There is so much wrong here it's astounding. For one, "right and true" is supported by evidence, not simply asserted as belief. If someone wants what they like to be made legal, they have every opportunity to support it with evidence. It's not about what I like vs what you like (although your admission that your view is nothing more than what you like speaks volumes), it's about what is supported by evidence. You are free to provide it.

Originally Posted by PGA2

If I like to boil and eat human beings that oppose my views because that is my preference, and the majority and legal position of my culture, and I can get away with doing this because my culture accepts this view I hold then, what makes my opinions on such issues any less right than your opposing views, if you live in my culture? Your system of thought has no final reference point or measure to argue otherwise. In fact, if I appeal to my culture as the ultimate consensus I can say that it is your views that are wrong, and you will be the next guest in my cauldron, thank you very much!

Again, nobody said it's the culture that is appealed to. It's the evidence.

Originally Posted by PGA2

If it is all relative to culture or all relative to an individual, how can you say that Obama's America is any better than Hitler's Germany, or Kim Jong-Un's North Korea?

The evidence will show which is better.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Christianity is a heart issue.

Not sure what you mean by this. The heart pumps blood.

Originally Posted by PGA2

No, not Zeus, or Allah, or Thor. God, as revealed in the Bible, has given justifiable evidence of His existence. I would argue that Zeus, nor Allah, nor Thor has.

And unfortunately, your God lacks evidence just like those other deities. And you'll find that most muslims would say about their deity exactly what you're saying about yours (ignoring, for now, the fact that it's the same deity).

Originally Posted by PGA2

If you wanted to investigate the claim, which is another discussion, I would invite you to disprove biblical prophecy on the evidence available. I don't see the Qu'ran, for instance, as offfering the same degree of accountability for its claims.

Biblical predictions all either fail outright, or are unbelievably vague. If there's one in particular you'd like to discuss (the best one), please offer it in the "Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified" thread.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Why does a system have to be determined on the best interests of its participants and who determines what are the best interests without an ultimate best reference point?

A system doesn't have to be determined on the best interests of its participants - many systems arent (non-SM/RM).

Originally Posted by PGA2

Do they just make a best up? Please answer the question as to your definition of best interests.

By definition, it's in a society's best interest to maximize the flourishing and minimize the unnecessary suffering of its members.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Also, Xi's China is not an RM value-based system, neither is Kim Jong-un's NOKO. Atheists put themselves in place of God by being their own gods.

Please note that, per the OP's definitions, "non-SM" and "RM" are inter-changeable. "RM" is simply the simplest shorthand for, and most common example of "non-SM". You made the statement: "Atheists put themselves in place of God by being their own gods." This is literally non-SM, and therefore in the same non-SM/RM category according to the OP's definitions.

Originally Posted by PGA2

"North Korea is an atheist state where public religion is discouraged."
"The Chinese government is officially atheist."

Expressing any preference for any religion or lack thereof means it's not SM.

Originally Posted by PGA2

You don't.You do not have what is necessary for such a standard.If my system of thought and belief is true then, I have an ultimate standard of appeal and measure.

Again, "we don't". Your "if" statement proves that neither you nor I have what you are referring to. Again, unsupported claims remain as such.

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

Originally Posted by FUTURE

And I was referring to situations where the laws were changed which resulted in changes to in-progress punishments, in some cases even to the extent of releasing prisoners. Again, this ability to be changed is the literal antithesis of incontrovertibility.

My church does mission work to the local prison. There are men there sentenced to life sentences, which had they done the same crime today would be out in 5 years (as the laws have changed).
So I don't think the system you proport exits in reality.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

Again, it is not incontrovertibly asserted. It's upheld as the best available option until arguments and/or are presented which controvert it. These arguments and/or facts aren't refused outright, which would fulfill the definition of incontrovertibility.

O, well all religions are like that. Given enough facts and evidence they change their minds.
They just think they are right and the bar is high.

So your don't really have a distinction.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

You mean the fact that someone is dead is incontrovertible? Again, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of incontrovertibility, or at least are misusing the term/using it quite loosely. The fact that someone is dead is not asserted incontrovertibly, and anyone is free to present evidence that someone is not dead.

Regarding the death sentence, this is also not incontrovertible for a very long time leading up to the actual punishment. That long time is specifically meant to provide opportunities to controvert the sentence before it is carried out. This is why, statistically, a vast majority of death penalties are, in fact, overturned (this source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.89857bcbf3e4) states that only 16% are carried out). Again, this is the literal antithesis of incontrovertibility.

The point you are missing is that at some point the rubber meets the road, and a something is actually done.
When a ruling is passed down, epecially when the bar is "beyond a reasonable doubt", that is as "incontrovertable" as you are going to get in reality.

What you seem to be appealing to is something that doesn't exist in reality.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

Again, wrong. Anyone is free to present arguments and/or evidence to controvert the verdict. The fact that in most cases verdicts aren't challenged due to lack of evidence doesn't mean the verdict is incontrovertibly asserted, it just means that the verdict has the evidence to back it up, and there isn't evidence which refutes it. But if anyone were to present reasoned arguments and evidence to controvert it, which they are free to do (again, the literal antithesis of incontrovertibility), the verdict can be overturned. If somebody would simply refuse actual new evidence which controverts the verdict simply by saying, "No, we decided he was guilty, so now he's guilty for ever", that would be asserting something incontrovertibly (dogmatically).

you didn't address the point that was made which you quoted.
Other than that.. religion is no different than what you have described.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

In the preamble of the US constitution, before any actual articles, it actually states the goal:
"to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

And if the gov isn't motivated to fulfill the constitution, then I don't know what you're talking about.

The gov is run by men, and men seek power and that power corrupts. Those men are not enclined to give up their power.
Hence the driving motivation of the founders to create a gov with clear limits. To put in check that truth.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

I think you meant "changing is not an antithetical element of dogma". But in any case, I'm not talking about actual change actually happening. This is I think your misunderstanding, based on your statements about verdicts and the death penalty. What I'm talking about is the ability to be changed. Read my sentence again: "that which can be changed is not incontrovertible dogma". It doesn't have to change, and it can remain unchanged/unchanging. But whether it can be changed is the important criteria when it comes to determining whether something is asserted as incontrovertible dogma.

I've supported how not only laws, but also individual guilty verdicts, as well as punishments, can all be changed. Please provide some examples of any of those being asserted and enforced incontrovertibly, where nobody is allowed to present arguments and/or evidence to controvert them. And again, remember it's not about whether there is evidence which can be presented or whether someone actually wants to do it, it's about whether evidence can be presented (is allowed to be presented).

Well as truth doesn't change I guess it is dogmatic by nature.
Also I think you have lost the distinction between religion and dogma and some more superior secular morality.

As long as both point to what they think are truths, and are willing to change, then they are both equally dogmatic and equally changeable.
So i think your distinction fails.
I also think you have not fully grasped the rubber meets the road fact that at some point when you strap a guy into a chair to be killed your doing something in a dogmatic way.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

These are not asserted incontrovertibly, and anyone is free to present reasoned and supported arguments and/or evidence against them. Yet again, the literal antithesis of incontrovertibility.

At the level your speaking of Religion is the same way.
Sure god exists and the bible is his word is an assumption, but given enough evidence people will change.
Unfortunatly those things are "truths" and truths don't change.. so it is as dogmatic as truth is.

Just as science is... so no relevant distinction.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

You are yet again playing/mixing with the concepts/definitions in order to support your argument. Since the definitions are quite clear for SM and RM (non SM), "non SM" doesn't require proof of it being dogmatic - it is dogmatic by definition. If any system is shown to not be dogmatic by nature, then it simply wouldn't be considered RM (non SM).

Cool then I know of no religion that actually fits in that.
So now all religion is secular .. Great clarification there.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

Could you be more specific, since your very next sentence admits that religious disputes end in armed conflict: "The fact that Christianity arose on the wrong end of the sword(IE the receiving end)".

It doesn't matter which end is which, the fact that a sword is involved proves the point that dogma. Further, Christianity has been on the other end quite a number of times, which again proves my point.

If SM is defined as not causing war, then there is no such thing in practice as our gov is currently involved in war, and war has been common throughout history.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

I've already responded to each of your incorrect statements about science, explaining why they are incorrect.

If your not going to answer the challenge then it is an unsupported claim.
All you have to do is quote where you did.

I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

My church does mission work to the local prison. There are men there sentenced to life sentences, which had they done the same crime today would be out in 5 years (as the laws have changed).
So I don't think the system you proport exits in reality.

Not all changes are applied retroactively, and the fact that your lifers aren't being released isn't representative of the principle I'm referring to (ability to change/be changed). You or anyone else is absolutely free to work towards getting those lifers released based on the change in the law you mentioned. The fact that nobody's doing that or that it hasn't yet worked in no way means that their sentences are asserted incontrovertibly.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

O, well all religions are like that. Given enough facts and evidence they change their minds. They just think they are right and the bar is high.

Really? Has the bible ever been updated to correct any dogmatic assertions?
In any case, the ability to adapt and improve is not the only criteria in which SM is superior.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

The point you are missing is that at some point the rubber meets the road, and a something is actually done.
When a ruling is passed down, epecially when the bar is "beyond a reasonable doubt", that is as "incontrovertable" as you are going to get in reality.

Dude, really? Again, you seem to be confusing "incontrovertible" with "actually controverted". Whether it actually happens has no bearing on whether someone is allowed to do it.
When "beyond a reasonable doubt" rulings are made, that simply means that nobody has been able to controvert the court's finding and the evidence presented thus far which led to a guilty verdict. It doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to controvert it. Please note that before, during, and after the process which led to the verdict, absolutely anyone is freely allowed to controvert what's presented by the prosecution. Hell, the very process of the trial is, in many ways, specifically designed to allow that to happen. Then you also have the appeals process. Again, and hopefully for the last time, this is the literal antithesis of incontrovertibility.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

you didn't address the point that was made which you quoted.

Your statement: "That is why you can be incontrovertably guilty of violatinga law."

My response:
"Again, wrong. Anyone is free to present arguments and/or evidence to controvert the verdict. The fact that in most cases verdicts aren't challenged due to lack of evidence doesn't mean the verdict is incontrovertibly asserted, it just means that the verdict has the evidence to back it up, and there isn't evidence which refutes it."

Or you could just google "verdicts overturned" to see countless examples of how verdicts are not incontrovertible.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Other than that.. religion is no different than what you have described.

Really? How many times has someone judged to be unworthy of heaven and sent to hell been able to change that verdict?

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

The gov is run by men, and men seek power and that power corrupts. Those men are not enclined to give up their power. Hence the driving motivation of the founders to create a gov with clear limits. To put in check that truth.

It's ironic that you accept what the founders wrote about creating limits, but not what the founders enshrined in the actual constitution about what the goal of the government should be.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Well as truth doesn't change I guess it is dogmatic by nature.

"Truth" is not something that one could coherently apply the word "dogmatic" to - it's just not used in that way.
Also I think you have lost the distinction between religion and dogma and some more superior secular morality.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

As long as both point to what they think are truths

Since when does religion ever make statements about "what they think are truths"? Are you so adamantly against homosexuality being accepted by society just because "your think it's true" that the deity "you think" exists wrote that it's an abomination in a book which "you think" is the true word of said deity?

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

I also think you have not fully grasped the rubber meets the road fact that at some point when you strap a guy into a chair to be killed your doing something in a dogmatic way.

And I've already responded with why that comparison fails.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

At the level your speaking of Religion is the same way.

Really? Again, how many times has someone been able to argue and get their eternal punishment nullified?

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Sure god exists and the bible is his word is an assumption, but given enough evidence people will change.

Again, your comparison between accepting theistic claims until enough evidence is given against them and the necessary assumptions held by scientists is just way off the mark, although I completely understand why you maintain such a skewed view.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Unfortunatly those things are "truths" and truths don't change.. so it is as dogmatic as truth is.

Again, this comparison fails utterly. Could someone controvert the dogmatic assertion that Jesus existed and still be a Christian?

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Cool then I know of no religion that actually fits in that.
So now all religion is secular .. Great clarification there.

Again, are you free to stop believing that Jesus existed and continue being a Christian? And what would happen to you, based on your current beliefs, if you stopped believing Jesus existed, and would you be able to argue against that?

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

If your not going to answer the challenge then it is an unsupported claim. All you have to do is quote where you did.

As I stated, I already answered your challenge: each time you made an incorrect statement about science, I corrected you. If you think there's a statement you made about science which I thought was incorrect but didn't respond to, all you have to do is quote where you did.

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

Originally Posted by FUTURE

And I've already responded with why that comparison fails.

I accept that to move along.
My major objection has been that what you are proposing doesn't exist in reality. It may be a great theory.
Thus far I have tried to show you how secular morality (as you have described it) is applied dogmatically.
Sure you have defined it out, and that is why I say it has never existed.

So now, I will argue that theoretically all religions I am aware of would fall under SM, as they are not theoretically dogmatic but open to reason and new facts.
Yes, Iknow people have forwarded religion dogmatically, but as that was an exemption for all SM, it applies to all religions I am awar of.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

Really? Has the bible ever been updated to correct any dogmatic assertions?
In any case, the ability to adapt and improve is not the only criteria in which SM is superior.

Wait, you didn't say it had to change, only that it COULD theoretically change.
And given the example of the jail. It is the theory that matters not the reality.

So, yea man you are free to offer evidence of what should or should not be in the bible. Or that any given
thing in the bible is not true.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

Dude, really? Again, you seem to be confusing "incontrovertible" with "actually controverted". Whether it actually happens has no bearing on whether someone is allowed to do it.
When "beyond a reasonable doubt" rulings are made, that simply means that nobody has been able to controvert the court's finding and the evidence presented thus far which led to a guilty verdict. It doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to controvert it. Please note that before, during, and after the process which led to the verdict, absolutely anyone is freely allowed to controvert what's presented by the prosecution. Hell, the very process of the trial is, in many ways, specifically designed to allow that to happen. Then you also have the appeals process. Again, and hopefully for the last time, this is the literal antithesis of incontrovertibility.

Excellent point.
As people are free to question religion's and change them they fall under SM and not dogmatic. By theory.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

Really? How many times has someone judged to be unworthy of heaven and sent to hell been able to change that verdict?

you are supposing that there are unknown facts, or some change in laws.
As we already established "truth" is incontrovertable. So as long as it reflects truth that is superior to anything you can come up with.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

It's ironic that you accept what the founders wrote about creating limits, but not what the founders enshrined in the actual constitution about what the goal of the government should be.

No, I recognize what they set up the point of gov to be. However the nature of gov hasn't changed and they recogized that.
Is it really that you are disputing that gov tend to retain power for itself and that over time power is centralized as a natural course?
Specifically the natural course that the founders were seeking to guard against?

Originally Posted by FUTURE

"Truth" is not something that one could coherently apply the word "dogmatic" to - it's just not used in that way.
Also I think you have lost the distinction between religion and dogma and some more superior secular morality.

Well if it is not going to change then it is incontrovertable.
So truth falls under RM and not under SM.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

Since when does religion ever make statements about "what they think are truths"? Are you so adamantly against homosexuality being accepted by society just because "your think it's true" that the deity "you think" exists wrote that it's an abomination in a book which "you think" is the true word of said deity?

your free to offer evidence otherwise.
So, it's not dogmatic

Originally Posted by FUTURE

Really? Again, how many times has someone been able to argue and get their eternal punishment nullified?

this objection is categorically flawed. There is no such thing as "new evidence" to bring to the court.
so just like the end of our system when the niddle is injected, so is eternal punishment. that a person has nothing to say
doesn't mean he didn't have opportunity.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

Again, this comparison fails utterly. Could someone controvert the dogmatic assertion that Jesus existed and still be a Christian?

Maybe if evidence was offered so as to compell that, yes.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

Again, are you free to stop believing that Jesus existed and continue being a Christian? And what would happen to you, based on your current beliefs, if you stopped believing Jesus existed, and would you be able to argue against that?

Theoretically I guess it could be possible.
It is no different than the assumptions of science.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

As I stated, I already answered your challenge: each time you made an incorrect statement about science, I corrected you. If you think there's a statement you made about science which I thought was incorrect but didn't respond to, all you have to do is quote where you did.

That is the claim I challenged yes. Repeating is not support.

I think however that given that I have now turned to the other side, I will instead accept your rejection and argue from it.
My argument has been that your OP is self contradictory and doesn't exist in reality. I'll be arguing that you have excluded any religion from RM through your justification and defense of SM.
Of course I find SM to be incoherent and non-existent in reality, so you should be familure with your own words as they are now repeated to you in defense of the exception of all Religions from RM.
I argued on the one hand that

I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

My major objection has been that what you are proposing doesn't exist in reality. It may be a great theory.

It's not only a great theory, but the basis for how most societies function.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Thus far I have tried to show you how secular morality (as you have described it) is applied dogmatically.

And each time I explained why your assertion that something within SM is dogmatic is incorrect.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Sure you have defined it out, and that is why I say it has never existed.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

So now, I will argue that theoretically all religions I am aware of would fall under SM, as they are not theoretically dogmatic but open to reason and new facts.

As per the OP, religions don't fall under SM as defined because they are based on religious/theistic/dogmatic traditions. You've been focusing on trying and failing to make the argument that SM is dogmatic, and now are trying to claim that religions aren't dogmatic (good luck). However, dogmatism is not the only criteria which places religious morality in the category of Non-SM. Religious morality is by definition non-secular morality as per the OP's definitions. If you wish to start another thread about how religion is actually secular, feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Wait, you didn't say it had to change, only that it COULD theoretically change.

Sure, and a demonstration that it could theoretically change is the fact that it has changed. So far, all you're doing is asserting that it can change.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

So, yea man you are free to offer evidence of what should or should not be in the bible. Or that any given thing in the bible is not true.

And the bible will be corrected?

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

As people are free to question religion's and change them they fall under SM and not dogmatic. By theory.

Again, the definitions don't rely solely on religions being dogmatic. Feel free to start another thread on how religion is secular, if you want to argue that position. Who knows? It might be fun!

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

No, I recognize what they set up the point of gov to be. However the nature of gov hasn't changed and they recogized that.
Is it really that you are disputing that gov tend to retain power for itself and that over time power is centralized as a natural course?
Specifically the natural course that the founders were seeking to guard against?

Let's re-cap:
MT - Point is, gov are not neutral agents. They are self preserving by nature.
FB - That a government will attempt to protect itself in order to continue fulfilling its goal of serving the people is not dogmatic
MT - Your projecting "in order to continue to fulfilling it's goal of serving the people". That certainly isn't a necessity of gov motivation, and if anything is the exception, as they really seek to maintain power.
FB - In the preamble of the US constitution, before any actual articles, it actually states the goal: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Well if it is not going to change then it is incontrovertable. So truth falls under RM and not under SM.

So earlier in your post you said you're going to argue that religions are SM because they aren't incontrovertible. And now you're saying that, because the truth can't be changed it's incontrovertible and therefore "fall under RM", because ... the dogmatic nature of religions means that only they have access to truth? I'm sorry MT, but even disregarding your blatant self-contradiction, it's really hard to take you seriously here.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

your free to offer evidence otherwise.

And this has been done repeatedly, so much so that some religions have even broken off into separate denominations in order to support homosexual tolerance and rights. So given that the evidence clearly supports that there's nothing homosexuality, why are you still adamantly against it?

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

this objection is categorically flawed. There is no such thing as "new evidence" to bring to the court.

It's not just about evidence, but also about making a reasoned argument based on existing evidence. This is actually how most appeals work - without any new evidence. So is that possible for anyone serving eternity in hell, or is that verdict truly incontrovertible?

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

so just like the end of our system when the niddle is injected, so is eternal punishment

Well no, it's not just like that. As far as we can tell, death by lethal injection is truly the last action that can possibly be performed with regard to someone's punishment. This is why there is a considerable amount of time before that to allow the sentence to be controverted (and an overwhelming majority are controverted, demonstrating that they are not incontrovertible). On the other hand, if, as you claim, punishment in hell implies that a person is still alive (in a sense) and able to communicate, they do have the cognitive/physical ability to attempt to controvert their verdict, but the question is whether that is actually allowed and if it ever happens, or if the punishment is truly eternal.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Maybe if evidence was offered so as to compell that, yes.

So if someone argued that Jesus did not exist, they'd still be allowed to call themselves a Xt

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

It is no different than the assumptions of science.

You assert that, yet fail to support it.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

That is the claim I challenged yes. Repeating is not support.

Again, support has been provided. If you dispute that, all you need to do is quote where it wasn't.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

I think however that given that I have now turned to the other side, I will instead accept your rejection and argue from it.

Not sure what you mean by "turn to the other side", but I'm guessing you're referring to your misguided attempt to argue that religion is secular.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

My argument has been that your OP is self contradictory and doesn't exist in reality.

Oh, you can be relatively sure that the OP exists in reality - why, you're replying to it right now!

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

I'll be arguing that you have excluded any religion from RM through your justification and defense of SM.

Again, the criteria are quite clear in the OP and are not limited to the strange gotcha you think you've stumbled onto. In any case, feel free to start another thread on why you think religion is secular.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Of course I find SM to be incoherent and non-existent in reality

Then that's just your own failing of understanding the concept, and I can't help you there. The definition is quite clear. SM is when morality is dealt with outside of religious/theistic/dogmatic traditions or claims.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

so you should be familure with your own words as they are now repeated to you in defense of the exception of all Religions from RM.

So, you start with saying religion is actually SM, then just now you said SM is incoherent non-existent, effectively contradicting your statement at the beginning of the post, and now are again saying that religions should not be considered RM, and therefore SM, contradicting yourself yet again.

MT, and please don't take this the wrong way, but I truly don't feel that you're engaging in this discussion seriously at all. If you want to keep playing games, I'm not going to bother responding to you.

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

Originally Posted by FUTURE

As per the OP, religions don't fall under SM as defined because they are based on religious/theistic/dogmatic traditions. You've been focusing on trying and failing to make the argument that SM is dogmatic, and now are trying to claim that religions aren't dogmatic (good luck). However, dogmatism is not the only criteria which places religious morality in the category of Non-SM. Religious morality is by definition non-secular morality as per the OP's definitions. If you wish to start another thread about how religion is actually secular, feel free to do so.

no your claim that it is dogmatic is false. According to how you have defended SM, all religions fall under SM in regards to dogma.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

Sure, and a demonstration that it could theoretically change is the fact that it has changed. So far, all you're doing is asserting that it can change.

That is not what you said about science.
so you are either contradicting yourself or your explanation was invalid.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

And the bible will be corrected?

I hear there are several versions out now. you may have heard of the king James that was corrected.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

So earlier in your post you said you're going to argue that religions are SM because they aren't incontrovertible. And now you're saying that, because the truth can't be changed it's incontrovertible and therefore "fall under RM", because ... the dogmatic nature of religions means that only they have access to truth? I'm sorry MT, but even disregarding your blatant self-contradiction, it's really hard to take you seriously here.

I'm saying that if religion is ultimatly incontrovertable it is because it reflects reality.
not because it can not possibly change.. just like science.
Sure you can offer evidence against the basic assumptions of science.... if you can. Same with religion.
You want to offer evidence that Jesus didn't exist? go right ahead.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

And this has been done repeatedly, so much so that some religions have even broken off into separate denominations in order to support homosexual tolerance and rights. So given that the evidence clearly supports that there's nothing homosexuality, why are you still adamantly against it?

You act as though the evidence is conclusive. A bit of an assumption on your part
and offered incontrovertibly by yourself. As long as their is a discussion about it, it's not dogmatic, as you said yourself some have found the evidence convincing and changed.

Doesn't sound dogmatic and incontroverable on the part of religion.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

It's not just about evidence, but also about making a reasoned argument based on existing evidence. This is actually how most appeals work - without any new evidence. So is that possible for anyone serving eternity in hell, or is that verdict truly incontrovertible?

Again a categorical error. Final judgment is not like the courst of America.
There is no appeal because all things are considered. There is no flawed judgment or some facts unknown.
are you supposing that final judgment aren't heard? As Iunderstand it, it's a persons own words that judge them.
Not much more fair than that.

Anyway, unless you are going to show that final judgment doesn't reflect some reality, then it isn't dogmatic, it's just reality. (again unless you don't believe in reality, or SM can't actually reflect it)

Originally Posted by FUTURE

Well no, it's not just like that. As far as we can tell, death by lethal injection is truly the last action that can possibly be performed with regard to someone's punishment. This is why there is a considerable amount of time before that to allow the sentence to be controverted (and an overwhelming majority are controverted, demonstrating that they are not incontrovertible). On the other hand, if, as you claim, punishment in hell implies that a person is still alive (in a sense) and able to communicate, they do have the cognitive/physical ability to attempt to controvert their verdict, but the question is whether that is actually allowed and if it ever happens, or if the punishment is truly eternal.

Your still assuming there is information to add after the judgment.
Here there may be, that is why we have appeals, up till the punishment.
Apparently God is not so inefficient as to have left some relevant evidence out.
or do you deny that a person can actually be guilty of anything? Can SM ever arrive upon reality and truths?

Originally Posted by FUTURE

So if someone argued that Jesus did not exist, they'd still be allowed to call themselves a Xt

I am aware of no law against it.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

You assert that, yet fail to support it.

how so they are both base assumptions. they are as basic as you can get.
If you don't assume that all things everywhere are under the same laws, then we can't do science.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

Again, support has been provided. If you dispute that, all you need to do is quote where it wasn't.

you want me to quote what you didn't say?
Anyway, moving on.. I withdraw the challenge as not relevant to my current line.

Originally Posted by FUTURE

So, you start with saying religion is actually SM, then just now you said SM is incoherent non-existent, effectively contradicting your statement at the beginning of the post, and now are again saying that religions should not be considered RM, and therefore SM, contradicting yourself yet again.

Before I argued that your OP was incoherent in regards to SM being a real thing. I argued that on the basis that SM even as you described it has dogmatic elements in it.
Now, given your explanation and defense of SM as not beig dogmatic, i realize that religion is not dogmatic, and thus doesn't fall into RM, or else your definition of RM is incoherent.

Religion is simply no more dogmatic than science, and as science is not dogmatic(according to you) then religion is not either.

This is not a game, this is me conveying My original point in a different way, in an attempt to reveal to you the flaw in your OP.
It may feel like a game, as now your fighting yourself.

I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

no your claim that it is dogmatic is false. According to how you have defended SM, all religions fall under SM in regards to dogma.

Again, dogmatism is not the only criterion which places religious morality in the category of Non-SM. Religious morality is by definition non-secular morality as per the OP's definitions. If you wish to start another thread about how religion is actually secular, feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

That is not what you said about science. so you are either contradicting yourself or your explanation was invalid.

No, but science has the added bonus that there are actual demonstrations of its ability to change.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

I hear there are several versions out now. you may have heard of the king James that was corrected.

Please provide an example of a factual correction made to the bible resulting from the discovery of new evidence.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

I'm saying that if religion is ultimatly incontrovertable it is because it reflects reality.

The incontrovertibility comes from the way in which it is asserted, not from what is asserted. That's what dogma is.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Sure you can offer evidence against the basic assumptions of science.... if you can. Same with religion.

Again, your comparison fails utterly. The basic assumptions of science are properly basic assumptions such as "the universe exists", and "it's possible to learn something about the universe". This is not the case with religion, which makes unsupported claims about what is true.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

You want to offer evidence that Jesus didn't exist? go right ahead.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

You act as though the evidence is conclusive. A bit of an assumption on your part

Well, in that the evidence was sufficient for someone to be convinced, yes, the evidence is conclusive. If you'd like to try and controvert the definition of "conclusive" go right ahead.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Doesn't sound dogmatic and incontroverable on the part of religion.

*SIGH* Again, dogmatism is not the only criterion which places religious morality in the category of Non-SM. Religious morality is by definition non-secular morality as per the OP's definitions. If you wish to start another thread about how religion is actually secular, feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Again a categorical error. Final judgment is not like the courst of America.

Right, "final" in that it's enforced incontrovertibly. Whereas the court system allows for this, making it not dogmatic in nature.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Anyway, unless you are going to show that final judgment doesn't reflect some reality, then it isn't dogmatic, it's just reality. (again unless you don't believe in reality, or SM can't actually reflect it)

You're literally saying that because it's reality that god's judgment is final (incontrovertible), it's not incontrovertible, it's just reality. Ridiculous self-contradictions aside, the bottom line is that you've tried to assert that the court system is dogmatic in that it asserts its verdicts incontrovertibly (which I've showed it doesn't), but the very same argument you made applies perfectly to the judgment and punishment which is enforced incontrovertibly by your deity.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Your still assuming there is information to add after the judgment.

No, a person can make reasoned arguments based on existing information, and these are heard by the court.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Here there may be, that is why we have appeals, up till the punishment.

Actually, appellate courts seldom have new evidence submitted - the appeal is based on the evidence presented during the original trial, and the appeal is a reasoned argument.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Apparently God is not so inefficient as to have left some relevant evidence out.

Please support this claim.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

I am aware of no law against it.

Would you call that person a Xtian?

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

how so they are both base assumptions. they are as basic as you can get.

Unfortunately, you appear to not understand the meaning of properly basic assumptions, which the claim of divinity is not. In any case, you didn't answer the questions: "Again, are you free to stop believing that Jesus existed and continue being a Christian? And what would happen to you, based on your current beliefs, if you stopped believing Jesus existed, and would you be able to argue against that?"

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

you want me to quote what you didn't say?

No, I wanted you to quote a statement you made about science that I didn't respond to - but anyway, since you've retracted your ridiculous challenge, it doesn't matter now.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Now, given your explanation and defense of SM as not beig dogmatic, i realize that religion is not dogmatic, and thus doesn't fall into RM, or else your definition of RM is incoherent.

Again, dogmatism is not the only criteria which places religious morality in the category of Non-SM. Religious morality is by definition non-secular morality as per the OP's definitions. If you wish to start another thread about how religion is actually secular, feel free to do so.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

This is not a game, this is me conveying My original point in a different way, in an attempt to reveal to you the flaw in your OP.

Again, the definitions are quite clear in the OP, and they make a distinct separation between secular morality and religious, or non-secular morality. The only flaw here is your misguided attempt to play games using just a single criterion of those definitions.

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

Originally Posted by PGA2

Sure it will harm you - fact. Is it accepted that abortion violently kills an innocent human being? If so, then why are there so many abortions (millions every year) if it is considered harmful to cut off (pull off) someone's head?

Originally Posted by futureboy

Well, for one, your comparison between someone cutting off your head and someone performing an abortion fails for a couple reasons: person-hood and suffering is not universally recognized in the case of abortions, and not all abortions are performed in the way you describe (violently, cutting/pulling). These are facts.

You confuse when personhood begins. The VERY NATURE of human beings is a personal nature. Have you ever met a human being who is not a person? From the moment of conception forward, the unborn is in the state of developing its human attributes.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Warning for graphic content showing decapitated unborn human beings

Originally Posted by futureboy

Please note that the last image you posted is not a decapitated unborn fetus, nor a successful abortion. It's an example of Dr. Kermit Gosnell's use of incorrect methods to perform abortions, and therefore is not a valid example to include in your gruesome selection.

Okay, the graphic nature is meant to show what an abortion is killing, but this particular type of procedure was done hundreds of time by this doctor, sometimes as a live or partial-birth abortion but many after the 24-week viability phase.

"Massof said that Gosnell cut the spinal cord “100 percent of the time” in second-trimester (and, presumably, third-trimester) procedures, and that he did so after the baby was delivered. Massof testified that he saw signs of life in some of these babies. He recalled seeing a heartbeat in one baby and observed a “respiratory excursion” (meaning a breath) in another. On other occasions, he observed “pulsation.” Gosnell dismissed these observations as “spontaneous movement.” “That was his answer for if we ever saw anything that was out of the ordinary, it was always a spontaneous movement.”

*A partial-birth abortion, as described in American Medical News (a publication of the American Medical Association[367]), entails:

the extraction of an intact fetus, feet first, through the birth canal, with all but the head delivered. The surgeon forces scissors into the base of the skull, spreads them to enlarge the opening, and uses suction to remove the brain.[368] [369] [370] [371] [372]

* According to the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, this procedure was typically performed at 20+ weeks (not specified if this is after conception or last menstrual period).[373]

American Medical News is the newspaper for America’s physicians. Published since 1958, it is one of the most widely read publications in the United States on news affecting the medical profession. From Medicare and managed care to public health and practice management, no other source covers the same range of current events affecting medical practice.

American Medical News is published by the American Medical Association and is intended to serve as a credible forum for information affecting physicians and their practices. The content of articles and the opinions expressed in AMNews are not necessarily endorsed by the AMA.

“Partial birth” abortions, also called “intact D&E” (for dilation and evacuation), or “D&X” (dilation and extraction) are done by only a handful of U.S. physicians, including Martin Haskell, MD, of Dayton, Ohio, and, until his recent death, James T. McMahon, MD, of the Los Angeles area. Dr. McMahon said in a 1993 AMNews interview that he had trained about a half-dozen physicians to do the procedure.

The procedure usually involves the extraction of an intact fetus, feet first, through the birth canal, with all but the head delivered. The surgeon forces scissors into the base of the skull, spreads them to enlarge the opening, and uses suction to remove the brain.

Page 2: “Common term for termination of a late pregnancy with a breech presentation. Labor is induced by conventional methods; the cervix is widely dilated and delivery is expedited by evacuation the cranial contents with a suction catheter, then compressing the cranium.”

The surgical method described in this paper [partial-birth abortion] differs from classic D&E [dilation and evacuation] in that it does not rely upon dismemberment to remove the fetus. Nor are inductions or infusions used to expel the intact fetus.

Rather, the surgeon grasps and removes a nearly intact fetus through an adequately dilated cervix. The author has coined the term Dilation and Extraction or D&X to distinguish it from dismemberment-type D&E’s.

This procedure can be performed in a properly equipped physician's office under local anesthesia. It can be used successfully in patients 20-26 weeks in pregnancy.

The author has performed over 700 of these procedures with a low rate of complications.

“Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers…. In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Mr. Fitzsimmons said.”

[374] Twenty weeks after fertilization. Intrauterine picture taken under the direction of Professor Andrzej Skawina of Collegium Medicum Jagiellonian University (Krakow, Poland) and Antoni Marsinek of the Czerwiakowski Gynecological and Obstetrics Hospital (Krakow, Poland); Photographers: Andrzej Zachwieja and Jan Walczewski. Copyright: Life Issues.

NOTE: A number of different photographers have published intrauterine photos. Just Facts asked several of these individuals for permission to reproduce their pictures, and Life Issues was the only one who consented. The pictures from Life Issues look similar to those taken by the other photographers.

While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.
Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissors tip and safe elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening.
The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

Originally Posted by PGA2

You confuse when personhood begins. The VERY NATURE of human beings is a personal nature. Have you ever met a human being who is not a person? From the moment of conception forward, the unborn is in the state of developing its human attributes.

Again, personhood is not universally recognized with regard to abortion. Try to look at this not so much as my own opinion on the matter, but the general consensus/accepted conclusions we have available to us. There are those who claim that fetuses should be treated as persons just like walking/talking humans, and there are those who don't accept this due to the myriad issues that would imply and therefore only those who have been born should be awarded the status of personhood. In short, the jury's still out on the matter. In any case, this is completely irrelevant to the debate. The discussion was about the fact that cutting off a person's head harms them, and how such objective observations serve as the basis for secular moral assessments. You bringing up abortion as some kind of gotcha doesn't address this at all.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Okay, the graphic nature is meant to show what an abortion is killing, but this particular type of procedure was done hundreds of time by this doctor, sometimes as a live or partial-birth abortion but many after the 24-week viability phase.

Again, and it's a shame I'm having to repeat myself here, this is not how all abortions are provided. Further, your focus on abortion is largely irrelevant to this debate and should be left in the numerous abortion threads, so please stay on topic.

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

Originally Posted by PGA2

You confuse when personhood begins. The VERY NATURE of human beings is a personal nature. Have you ever met a human being who is not a person? From the moment of conception forward, the unborn is in the state of developing its human attributes.

Originally Posted by futureboy

Again, personhood is not universally recognized with regard to abortion. Try to look at this not so much as my own opinion on the matter, but the general consensus/accepted conclusions we have available to us. There are those who claim that fetuses should be treated as persons just like walking/talking humans, and there are those who don't accept this due to the myriad issues that would imply and therefore only those who have been born should be awarded the status of personhood. In short, the jury's still out on the matter. In any case, this is completely irrelevant to the debate. The discussion was about the fact that cutting off a person's head harms them, and how such objective observations serve as the basis for secular moral assessments. You bringing up abortion as some kind of gotcha doesn't address this at all.

1) Since your point is that personhood is not universally known then you SHOULD give the unborn the benefit of the doubt.

2) Human beings are personal beings.
The unborn is a human being.
Therefore the unborn has a personality.

What you fail to recognize is that from the moment of conception the unborn have an undeveloped human nature. That nature means it has a personal nature. If you deny this you would have to prove the unborn is not a human from conception/fertilization (the moment it becomes a separate and individual being) onwards.

3) This is just another demonstration that a SM worldview has no certainty or what is necessary for certainty.

Originally Posted by futureboy

Again, and it's a shame I'm having to repeat myself here, this is not how all abortions are provided. Further, your focus on abortion is largely irrelevant to this debate and should be left in the numerous abortion threads, so please stay on topic.

I'd be glad to take it over to the abortion thread, but my original point was that unless there is an objective, final, absolute reference point morality comes down to a difference of opinion, which makes any discussion of morality mute. There is no best to apply any value to so your opinion becomes no BETTER than mine in SM. This means you are living inconsistently, if your worldview were true. You keep borrowing from the Christian worldview that can give what is necessary to make sense of morality.

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

Originally Posted by PGA2

I'd be glad to take it over to the abortion thread, but my original point was that unless there is an objective, final, absolute reference point morality comes down to a difference of opinion, which makes any discussion of morality mute.

If you mean if two people can't agree on a fundamental level and can't prove that either of them are right (which would be the case if it's a matter of opinion), then the debate would go nowhere. But then I don't see how religion solves the issue. If two religious people have a moral disagreement and their differences are ultimately rooted in a disagreement on how their common religious text should be interpreted (or which religious text is correct if they are from different religions) then they are no less at an impasse.

There is nothing a religious or irreligious person can do to prove that they are morally correct to someone who disagrees with them at a fundamental level. Whether that person's moral views are religious or secular makes no difference.

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

Originally Posted by PGA2

I'd be glad to take it over to the abortion thread, but my original point was that unless there is an objective, final, absolute reference point morality comes down to a difference of opinion, which makes any discussion of morality mute.

I offered you an objective basis for making moral assessments, and you chose to go off on an emotional abortion tangent. Care to address the point?

Originally Posted by PGA2

There is no best to apply any value to so your opinion becomes no BETTER than mine in SM.

Again, the objective assessments upon which morals are based in an SM system avoids this issue. This is the point you have repeatedly failed to address.

Originally Posted by PGA2

This means you are living inconsistently, if your worldview were true. You keep borrowing from the Christian worldview that can give what is necessary to make sense of morality.

Ironically, I can only ask that you rephrase these statements, since I'm not able to make sense of them.

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

Originally Posted by PGA2

I'd be glad to take it over to the abortion thread, but my original point was that unless there is an objective, final, absolute reference point morality comes down to a difference of opinion, which makes any discussion of morality mute.

Originally Posted by mican333

If you mean if two people can't agree on a fundamental level and can't prove that either of them are right (which would be the case if it's a matter of opinion), then the debate would go nowhere.

I mean that until/unless there is an absolute consensus regarding its personhood (for its humanity is determined) then, killing the unborn should not be done. Can you determine that it is not a person with full certainty?

A difference of opinion doesn't necessarily mean both sides are wrong.

Again, the nature of human beings is a personal nature.
The unborn is a human being.
Therefore the unborn has a personal nature (no matter how undeveloped it is).

If you want to disqualify a human being on the basis of being less developed than another human being then whenever you find a human being less developed than you then you can kill it, and when someone finds you less developed than they are then they can kill you. Basically, the abortion argument focuses on one of four points - size, level of development, enviroment, and degree of dependency.

But then I don't see how religion solves the issue. If two religious people have a moral disagreement and their differences are ultimately rooted in a disagreement on how their common religious text should be interpreted (or which religious text is correct if they are from different religions) then they are no less at an impasse.

First, logically two different religions can't both be right/true to God.
When a dispute arises within the Christian belief system on a grey area, the Word (Scripture) is our guide. That is our ultimate, final authority on matters of dispute. The very same ideas that your worldview sometimes sees as wrong (depending upon the person) is laid out in plain language in the Bible - Do not steel, do not lie, do not murder, do not covet, do not commit adultery; love God with all your being.

What doctrinal issues are you speaking about in regards to morality with Christianity?

Originally Posted by mican333

There is nothing a religious or irreligious person can do to prove that they are morally correct to someone who disagrees with them at a fundamental level. Whether that person's moral views are religious or secular makes no difference.

With Christianity, we have the necessary ultimate reference point, God's word. It is just a matter of correctly interpreting it.

2 Timothy 2:15
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

With an interpretation, the object of the interpreter is to truly understand what is being said by the Author or we miss what the Author means.

The question with the SM position is how do you get to best? Why is your position better than mine? Do you arbitrarily make up best or is there a fixed reference point that does not change? Subjective, by very definition is subject to change. We see different cultures and even subcultures within any particular society with a difference of opinion. This begs the question of who is really/truly/actually right?

Re: Secular Morality vs. Non-Secular Morality

Originally Posted by PGA2

I mean that until/unless there is an absolute consensus regarding its personhood (for its humanity is determined) then, killing the unborn should not be done. Can you determine that it is not a person with full certainty?

It depends on how you define "person". But then I don't see how settling on a definition, in and of itself, supports either side. To win that argument you would have to:

1. Support that the unborn are "persons" (which is really just a matter of settling on a definition and then seeing if it applies to the unborn).
2. Then, adhering to that definition, support that all "persons" are entitled to the right to life.

Until that happens, it seems that both sides are free to agree to disagree and neither has to accept the other side.

Originally Posted by PGA2

A difference of opinion doesn't necessarily mean both sides are wrong.

Again, the nature of human beings is a personal nature.
The unborn is a human being.
Therefore the unborn has a personal nature (no matter how undeveloped it is).

But that does not support that the unborn are deserving of the legal right to life. As above, you need to specifically define when a life has a "personal nature" and then show that having a personal nature entitles that life to the right to life.

Originally Posted by PGA2

If you want to disqualify a human being on the basis of being less developed than another human being then whenever you find a human being less developed than you then you can kill it, and when someone finds you less developed than they are then they can kill you. Basically, the abortion argument focuses on one of four points - size, level of development, enviroment, and degree of dependency.

I disagree. But then even if you are correct that the pro-choice argument is invalid, you still have not made a successful counter-argument. Before one has to accept that the unborn have the right to life, an argument has to be made demonstrating this.

Originally Posted by PGA2

First, logically two different religions can't both be right/true to God.
When a dispute arises within the Christian belief system on a grey area, the Word (Scripture) is our guide. That is our ultimate, final authority on matters of dispute. The very same ideas that your worldview sometimes sees as wrong (depending upon the person) is laid out in plain language in the Bible - Do not steel, do not lie, do not murder, do not covet, do not commit adultery; love God with all your being.

I understand. But that doesn't address my point.

A liberal Christian and a conservative Christian will likely have different INTERPRETATIONS of scripture. And other religions will use different texts entirely.

There is no way that I know of that such intractable disagreements can be resolved. So there never is one provably correct answer to certain issues, regardless of whether the people are religious or secular.

And the moral issues where there is pretty much a moral consensus amongst the religious (like don't kill) likewise has a consensus amongst the secular which indicates that religion is not necessary for people to uniformly hold that moral position.

Originally Posted by PGA2

With Christianity, we have the necessary ultimate reference point, God's word. It is just a matter of correctly interpreting it.

But that in no way solves the issue of disagreements between people.

Any two religious people can have an intractable disagreement. One can be of a different religion, which means that they still abide by NSM, and disagree with Christians and therefore we have an impasse just like two SM people would have.

And even within Christianity, people can have disagreements. You say that the problem is solved by just accurately interpreting scripture but there is no objective way to accurately interpret scripture. You can forward your best interpretation of scripture but as you are not perfect (no one is), there's no guarantee that your interpretation is always right. So another Christian can disagree with your interpretation and just as it's possible that you are right and he is wrong, it's also possible that he is right and you are wrong and there is no one on Earth who is perfect and therefore can resolve with any certainty the disagreement between you to.

Originally Posted by PGA2

The question with the SM position is how do you get to best? Why is your position better than mine?

That's kind of straw-man as I never said you could. But let me ask you the same question about NSM.

If another Christian and you have a sincere and unresolvable disagreement on an interpretation of scripture, how do you know which person has the better interpretation? As far as I can tell, all you can do is ask another human being who is no less fallible than either of you.

Originally Posted by PGA2

Do you arbitrarily make up best or is there a fixed reference point that does not change? Subjective, by very definition is subject to change. We see different cultures and even subcultures within any particular society with a difference of opinion. This begs the question of who is really/truly/actually right?

First off, no morality is arbitrarily made up. However we get it, it's rooted pretty deep. I cannot suddenly decide that murder is no longer immoral.

And a change in morality is often a good thing. For example, some people so change their moral positions on things like racism for the better over time. And even those who practice NSM morality will change their morality over time (which would really just be someone better aligning themselves with correct morality as they get wiser).

And SM is likely not arbitrary at all. Assuming morality is secular, it's reasonable to posit that morality is an evolutionary trait and therefore "correct" morality is that which helps a species survive and therefore people being morally against murder is due to people murdering each other hampers a species ability to survive and procreate. In fact, most moral positions seemed aimed at having people cooperate with each other better for their mutual benefit. I'm not saying that this is indeed why we have morality (again I take an agnostic position on which is correct) but it indeed seems that however we got morality, it's based on something intrinsic.